That's what I wanna achieve :
There will be dll which contains only methods which calls my actual methods from my application and I can share that dll with outside world regardless of which methods it includes because actual methods will be in the dll in my application but if some one uses that outside dll he/she can manages to get my application to do something in limits of I desire.
I hope I could describe what I want. I don't know if you have ever used Skype4COM.dll. It actually works like that, it somehow connects to Skype Client and let me call some one I want. For example :
Skype s = new Skype();
s.PlaceCall("phoneNumber");
I import Skype4COM dll in my project and when i write code like above in C#, it connects to Skype and make a call.
I think there is no actual methods which makes calls in Skype4Com.dll. I think it only does have some sort of methods which reach actual methods in Skype API and make the call so whatever the developers change in Skype, it doesn't affect Skype4Com.dll wrapper as long as signature stays the same.
So, that's what I want to achive, I am not quite interested in writing wrappers tho, that was a sample case, I want to write a dll which reachs my API and uses method signatures and let people use the application from outside so as long as the signatures stay same, if I want to change something between block I don't need to change the dll given out to outside..
Thank in advance....
If I understand you correctly, you want to expose a limited subset of the functions of your application to outside users. In effect, you want to offer a service, but nothing else.
Then you should use Windows Communication Foundation to host a service inside of your application (or elsewhere). This service could use industry-standard protocols like SOAP; or could use REST; or it could use faster binary transfers over TCP/IP for your .NET clients.
It's perfect for a service-oriented situation like yours.
What you're describing is a COM wrapper around Skype. If you really want a COM wrapper around your C# DLL, you can do that. Microsoft has provided an example that demonstrates how to create a COM Class from C#.
If you're looking into providing a wrapper around your code from managed DLLs, then it's as simple as providing a public interface that consumers of your DLL can use. You'll probably also want to install your code in the GAC (Global Assembly Cache) so that anyone that wants to call into your API can do so without putting copies of your code all over their system.
You could make everything internal instead of public inside this DLL. Internal keyword restricts access to classes, methods or properties to assembly while public keyword allows access from other assemblies
Related
I was wondering how I could program like a certain API, I have written an algorithm that I want to publish so people can use it, but I don't want people to see the code, and steal it? Paranoid, I know, but still.
How is that made, so for instance I can in a C# script (the API would also be written in C#), include it (with using ApiName) and use the functions inside, for instance if the API has a function that I program like "void Calculate(float x, float y)", and then from a script they can call "Calculate(100, 200)" for instance. I know it's somehow possible because of the Windows API, etc. Also is creating a Class Library the same thing?
Before any code runs, it is either compiled or interpreted into binary. This is highly simplified but that is the general idea. As long as a library or API provides an interface like names of functions, the implementation itself can be compiled and still work.
For C#, NuGet is a good example, you can create a NuGet of your code (see https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/nuget/create-packages/creating-a-package) where the public function and method signatures will be visible and usable but the implementations will be compiled. DLLs work in a similar way. You can reference them and call their public members but not see the code unless you use a tool to decompile them.
I am designing an application that will need to create some C# classes at runtime. I would like to be able to convert those classes into javascript equivalents. For example I might have a C# class that looks like
public class Person
{
public int Score { get; set; }
public bool IsScoreValid()
{//code in real implementation would be more complex and make use of various properties
return Score > 0 && Score <= 100;
}
}
The trick here is that the Person class here will be created at runtime based on some configuration. I do not have control over the code in the IsScoreValid method and it could change while the application is running. I only know that it is valid C# code. I need a robust way to convert this class into a javascript equivalent, and I need to be able to perform this conversion at runtime. Would Bridge.net be a good way to convert this javascript? Can Bridge.net compiler be invoked at runtime?
If it is possible? It indeed is, see http://deck.net/. But unfortunately the project is not open source. Basically it is a project that directly calls Bridge.Translator.Translate() method with the right parameters to build the file.
A web project implementing real time bridge compilation would need to be capable of handling server-side calls, like webservices (ashx) in Asp.NET, but you can also do that via cgi-bin or php from linux/osx, using the Bridge CLI if you make commandline calls, or wire up a wrapper to call Bridge.Translator directly. That would need to be a Mono-capable binary to be linked against Bridge.Translator on Linux/osx though.
While the deck.net project is not open, Bridge itself is, so you have full access to see how to call Bridge's Translate() method from either the Bridge.Builder or Bridge CLI open projects.
Bridge Builder console app sources at Bridge main repository
Bridge Translator sources at Bridge main repository
Bridge CLI sources
But if you want the code not to care about references, like missing the definition or a prototype for IsScoreValid(), then that would be a problem to work with Bridge. It would require at least the method to be prototyped and marked External before it could accept the call; as the code tree is built thru roslyn, the c# code must be complete and buildable. (or else, could we call it proper C#? maybe, in your case, you don't really require full-fledged C#)
Ok so I have built my WCF service and its functioning great! However, I am starting to implement it into our pre-existing piece of software now and I am instantly running into the question, do I only use the proxy generated code and get rid of the dll that I used initially? Or do I keep both, and make distinctions between the two very obvious?
What I mean by keeping distinctions is, having a ServerUser and a LocalUser property that represent the same user object. However, my LocalUser property would be filled via the dll that the app initally ran with, if the application service is unavailable.
My main reasoning for this thought pattern is that if I remove my dll, I have a single point of failure. If for some reason my ServiceHost is just not up and running, but the DB server is, I would want my users to still be able to do their job. The features that the new WCF implementation utilize are not dependant for employees to do their job. It is more of a convenience in what the WCF service provides. Also, building in this kind of logic to the Service would allow service modifications more readily available in a non IIS hosted environment.
Also, is there a way to build in logic on the service so that when I pull down the proxy code for the client that it just knows to access the DB manually if the ServiceHost is unavailable? If this was a possibility, I think about 90% of all my problems would disappear.
Thank you in advance!
From what you describe it sounds like keeping your existing DLL, i.e. direct access to the DB, would best suit your needs. Having a WCF service adds nothing if, when it fails, you'll just use the DLL anyway.
Ideally you would go with the WCF service completly and offer some kind of redundency to deal with any potenial service issues. Plus, using a service will mean you won't have to deal with any DLL upgrades/deployments.
But, from your question, it sounds like there would be some real issues to deal with should the service not be available, so just do with the DLL.
EDIT: Just read the last part of your question and I don't think that is possible. The proxy code for accessing services is generated when you add the reference to your project. The kind of "dynamic" information you're after would actually require a service.
EDIT: As a follow up to my comment below you could test this by creating a DLL and class, lets call it Class1. Then create a WCF service with a method that will return Class1. Create a client application and add a reference to the service. If you look at the proxy-generated code you should see (hopefully...I'm thinking of this as I type :)) that the method returns Class1, but when you compile it won't be able to find Class1. This is because Class1 does not have the DataContractAttribute which would auto-generate Class1 on the client. So, you have to distribute the shared DLL to the client. Now when the method returns and WCF tries to re-create Class1 it will use the local version in the shared DLL. Your other DLL, which will already be on the client, would use the same shared DLL.
I am developing a .NET 4.0 client that will utilize a C Library for data processing. The user will be able to specify the DLL file they wish to load for processing.
I am doing late binding / assembly loading as described here. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jonathanswift/archive/2006/10/03/dynamically-calling-an-unmanaged-dll-from-.net-_2800_c_23002900_.aspx
For each DLL, the same method call sequences will be the same in my client, but the method signatures will change or the data structs passed in will change. The data populated with the structures will be different depending on the version of the DLL and other factors. Example, the definition of MyStruct will change depending on the version of the DLL.
public delegate int INTF_my_method(ref MyStruct pDataStruct);
What design patterns or design decision are recommended for this approach? I need to load the appropriate C method delegates and data definitions based on the version of the DLL that the user has specified, and populate the structures appropriately. Has anyone done something like this before?
There is no clean approach to this, neither in managed code nor native code. The best you could possibly do is to declare an interface type that tries to cover all possible versions and then write concrete wrapper classes for each individual version of the API. If there's at least some common functionality then you can shovel that in a base class.
Notable too is that you cannot just let the user pick a DLL, you have to pair the DLL with the concrete wrapper class instance.
Building this kind of flexibility in your program is obviously very expensive.
You can load different versions of your DLLs, but only from separate AppDomains. That is, for each DLL you want to load, you will have to create a new AppDomain.
I currently have a .NET class library written in C# that exposes its functionaility via COM to a C++ program (pre-.NET).
We now want to move the library out-of-process to free up address space in the main application (it is an image-processing application, and large images eat up address space). I remember from my VB6 days that one could create an "OLE automation server". The OS would automatically start and stop the server .exe as objects were created/destroyed. This looks like the perfect fit for us: as far as I can see nothing would change in the client except it would call CoCreateInstance with CLSCTX_LOCAL_SERVER instead of CLSCTX_INPROC_SERVER.
How would I create such an out-of-process server in C#? Either there is no information online about it, or my terminology is off/out of date!
You can actually do this in .NET (I've done it before as a proof-of-concept), but it's a bit of work to get everything working right (process lifetime, registration, etc).
Create a new Windows application. In the Main method, call RegistrationServices.RegisterTypeForComClients- this is a managed wrapper around CoRegisterClassObject that takes care of the class factory for you. Pass it the Type of the managed ComVisible class (the one you actually want to create- .NET supplies the class factory automatically) along with RegistrationClassContext.LocalServer and RegistrationConnectionType.SingleUse. Now you have a very basic exe that can be registered as a LocalServer32 for COM activation. You'll still have to work out the lifetime of the process (implement refcounts on the managed objects with constructors/finalizers- when you hit zero, call UnregisterTypeForComClients and exit)- you can't let Main exit until all your objects are dead.
The registration isn't too bad: create a ComRegisterFunction attributed method that adds a LocalServer32 key under HKLM\CLSID(yourclsidhere), whose default value is the path to your exe. Run regasm yourexe.exe /codebase /tlb, and you're good to go.
You could always expose your .NET class as COM classes using InteropServices and then configure the library as a COM+ application. The .NET library would run out-of-process and be hosted by a DLLHOST.EXE instance.
Here is an article in MSDN that covers all aspects of how to create COM localserver in c# (.net): link
Your post started a while ago and I had the same problem. The following link is absolute gold and tells you everything
http://www.andymcm.com/blog/2009/10/managed-dcom-server.html